groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mario Garcia <mario.g...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Pull request to make private methods static when they are plain functions
Date Thu, 28 Apr 2016 04:50:30 GMT
Thanks for the clarification :)
On 28 Apr 2016 02:12, "John Wagenleitner" <john.wagenleitner@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Mario Garcia <mario.ggar@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Besides, I was wondering If most, if not all these static methods, should
>> have all parameters marked as final. Is there any policy about this ? Would
>> it help ?
>>
>
>
> I don't think there's a policy, personally I tend to not use final for
> local/parameters unless it's used in an anonymous inner class.  Hopefully
> the methods are short enough that the extra syntax is not needed to know if
> it reassigned or not.
>
>
>>
>> 2016-04-24 21:46 GMT+02:00 Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>:
>>
>>> On 24.04.2016 18:12, John Wagenleitner wrote:
>>>
>>>> About to merge in PR 290 [1] and wanted to do a quick poll to see if
>>>> there were any objections since it touches quite a few files across core
>>>> and sub-modules.  Any objections to merging this into master?  And
>>>> GROOVY_2_4_X?
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/290
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess it is ok. I did see two package private methods made private
>>> instead of only private ones, but even those should be ok. so unless I did
>>> oversee something I do not really have any objection here.
>>>
>>> bye Jochen
>>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message